Adams v. Manglicmot
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-07952
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Adams v. Manglicmot, Judge Gilliam denied counsel and granted defendants a second extension to file a dispositive motion.
Herron A. Adams remains without appointed counsel, subject to possible future appointment, while Lina Manglicmot and the other defendants received additional time to file their dispositive motion.
What happened
In Adams v. Manglicmot, Herron A. Adams, a California inmate representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer in his civil-rights case. The defendants asked for more time to file a dispositive motion.
The court denied Adams’s request for a lawyer because the case’s exceptional-circumstances requirement was not met. The court said the likelihood of success was unclear and the claims were not particularly complex. It granted the defendants’ second request for more time and set deadlines for the remaining briefing.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the request for appointed counsel, without prejudice to a possible future appointment, and granted the defendants’ second extension request. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Adams v. Manglicmot · No. 4:19-cv-07952
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 5, 2020
Background
Herron A. Adams, an inmate at California Training Facility, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The pending matters were Adams’s request for appointment of counsel and the defendants’ second request for more time to file a dispositive motion.
Request for Appointed Counsel
Adams asked the court to appoint a lawyer, citing his inability to afford counsel, the number of defendants, the complexity of the issues, COVID-19-related prison lockdowns and lack of law-library access, disabilities, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, wheelchair use, lack of legal education, educational history, and the anticipated need for discovery and depositions.
The court explained that a person generally has no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case unless losing the case could result in loss of physical liberty. Under the statute governing appointment of counsel for people who cannot afford lawyers, the court may appoint counsel in “exceptional circumstances.” The court evaluates both the likely success of the claims and the person’s ability to explain those claims in light of their complexity. The need for discovery or the possibility that a lawyer would improve the person’s case does not, by itself, establish exceptional circumstances.
Because the case was at an early stage, the court found that Adams’s likelihood of success was unclear and that his claims were not particularly complex. It therefore denied the request for appointed counsel. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel on its own at a later time if circumstances warranted.
Extension of Time
The court found good cause for the defendants’ second request for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion and granted it. The order also stated that Adams’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion was filed, the defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition, and the motion would be submitted when the reply was due without a hearing.
Disposition
The court denied Adams’s request for appointment of counsel and granted the defendants’ second request for an extension of time to file their dispositive motion. The order terminated the two motions and did not resolve the merits of the underlying civil-rights case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.